On his blog, libertarian bestselling author and Ron Paul homeschooling curriculum writer Tom Woods has written some thoughts about thin and thick libertarianism and how they apply to the Duck Dynasty controversy.

If you’ve been living in a cave, the star of reality television show Duck Dynasty said some unfortunate things about gay people and some really unfortunate things about black people living in the Jim Crow South to GQ magazine. The remarks were homophobic and racist, and he was suspended from his show by A&E.

Somehow Woods ties this to thick libertarianism, and uses it as a jumping off point to critique a movement he dislikes.

First, he describes and takes issue with thick libertarianism. “Some libertarians say the traditional libertarian principle of nonaggression is insufficient.” He says, “If [people] support nonaggression, they are libertarians.”

The position thick libertarians take on the non-aggression principle is that it’s a starting place, not a place to end. The trouble with it is that there are multiple ways to define aggression. As Jason Brennan points out, “What counts as aggression depends upon what rights people have.”

Woods then defines thick libertarianism as requiring people to “have left-liberal views on religion, sexual morality, feminism, etc., because reactionary beliefs among the public are also threats to liberty.”

More accurately, thick libertarianism asks people to oppose racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry because bigotry against some is a threat to liberty for all. If Woods disagrees with this idea, it’s not clear how or why.

Speaking of the way thick libertarians see social views that aren’t “left-liberal,” Woods asks, “Why is it only the traditional moral ideas of the bourgeoisie that are supposed to be so threatening?” I didn’t realize the racism, sexism and homophobia thick libertarians critique were the traditional moral ideas of the bourgeoisie. I think it’s more realistic to say, and polling data bears this out, that these kind of socially illiberal attitudes are much more prevalent among the poorly educated than whoever Woods describes as “bourgeoisie.”

While it’s difficult to survey for racism, as most racists don’t self-identify as such, survey data has shown lower IQ scores are associated with not being able to agree with statements such as “I wouldn’t mind working with people from other races.” There’s actually a strong positive correlation between education and approval of interracial marriage. One survey and another study found a negative correlation between parental income and homophobia.

But whether they are bourgeois or uneducated has zero bearing on whether they’re threats to liberty. Again, it would be great for Woods to get into whether or not bigotry constitutes a threat to liberty.

I would argue that denying someone goods or services on the basis of their sex, gender, orientation, religion, etc. is a curtailment of their liberty, at the very least to enjoy those goods and services.

That does not justify legally forcing someone to stop discriminating. However, it does justify calling out the pernicious effects of discrimination. That, in essence, is thick libertarianism. It’s concerned with both kinds of threats to freedom, government-created and cultural. And it proposes voluntary solutions, like education, or reality television show suspensions, to those threats.

I found it interesting how everyone focused on Robertson's anti-gay remarks (which are pro forma for the conservative Christian ilk) while his incredibly stupid and ignorant reflections on black people in the Jim Crow South went largely unnoticed. Also, would Christians claim they couldn't fire someone who said the equivalent about their religion? I doubt it. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from any consequences to your speech.

Actually, the paleos are just as "thick" as any kind of libertarian. It's just that instead of bolting the social values on to the non-aggression principle that left-"thick"-libertarians do, they bolt on "traditionalist," "conservative," "bourgeois" social values.

Alright, A+E is a private company. Does this mean to all libertarians, vulgar or left, agree that a+e can fire Phil because Phil had broken his part of the contract, even if the contract limited Phil's Freedom of Speech?

An analogy: To enter my house you must not call me, the house's owner, a "chink." You had accepted the term. But later on when we quarreled & you called me a "chink," & I demanded that you go out of my house accordingly. You may whine that I clearly violated your freedom of speech, but you had agreed to limit your freedom of speech to enter my house, my property, so by demanding you to go out, I simply don't let you to stay on my property anymore because you violate your part of the contract. If you resort to the state & force me to let you remain on my property against my will, then the statist is you, not I.

Some may try to derail the topic by pointing to state-intervention against racial segregation in Souther White racists' private restaurants? Of course, I defend Southern White racists' rights not to let Black peoples use their property. But Sheldon Richman had shown that, even without state-intervention, Black peoples kept peacefully sitting in & economic pressures (losing Black customers, boycotts by non-racist whites, etc.) soon forced White racists to desegregate restaurants, even before Civil Rights Acts' Title II would be passed by the state.

Still, what's so wrong about leftists exercising their freedom of speech to call Phil a racist & a homophobe?

What's so wrong about those leftist viewers boycotted the show, thus denying the show-makers income, & thus the show-makers make a sound economic decision to regain those leftist viewers (by firing Phil, who had broken his part of the contract anyway), then those leftists clearly used peaceful, free market, non-state tactics, thus legitimate to libertarians, to get what they want.

Right-wingers disliked leftists pressure which had forced a+e to fire Phil? Just boycott the show & see if a+e shall hire Phil back.

Last words & digression: I never favor using compulsory public education to impose leftism on children. I favor abolishing public education altogether because right-wingers had been historically using public education to impose rightism on children. Valid & sound logics are enough to convince peoples how stupid racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, & many traditionally right-wing beliefs are, & peoples will just, without the state's intervention, ignore right-wingers.

"Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from any consequences to your speech."

As long as those consequences are not aggression against the speaker. For example, I shan't punch a person's nose because that person has called me a chink, I will just call them a "racist."If they tell me to shut up, I will ask where is my freedom of speech?